Sensor Corrosion Analysis and Fix [Merged]

[dummilux]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 minutes ago, DandA said:

Jason, welcome and thanks for all your posting and information.  You mentioned that Leica got around the underexposure issue by issuing new firmware for those cameras in which they replaced with the latest sensor.  If that's the case, if someone wanted you to replace the coverglass in a M9 that has the latest sensor to obtain your replacement BG40, would they then have to find a way to revert to the firmware revision that was just prior to the latest installed by Leica upon replacing the camera with the latest sensor?

 

Dave (D&A)

 Jadon*

[Jadon Rosado]

1 hour ago, DandA said:

Jason, welcome and thanks for all your posting and information.  You mentioned that Leica got around the underexposure issue by issuing new firmware for those cameras in which they replaced with the latest sensor.  If that's the case, if someone wanted you to replace the coverglass in a M9 that has the latest sensor to obtain your replacement BG40, would they then have to find a way to revert to the firmware revision that was just prior to the latest installed by Leica upon replacing the camera with the latest sensor?

 

Dave (D&A)

Yes according to leicas parts department (just one guy at the moment) leica has to make a slight tweak to the firmware to compensate for the underexposure. I haven’t had the pleasure of repairing an upgraded sensor so I don’t know what would happen. being that mine essentially creates almost a boost in exposure you would surely have to use the exposure comp to bring it down unless it’s possible to send it back to leica to have it changed back. It would be nice to get the firmware from Leica since they aren’t using it anymore but that would just be too convenient haha

best,

Jadon

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[DandA]

Thank you Jason for your reply. I appreciate your diligence and attention to the small details and hope that your endeavors into addressing corroded sensor coverglass is successful and look forward to your future postings as things develop.

Dave (D&A)

[dummilux]

19 minutes ago, DandA said:

Thank you Jason for your reply. I appreciate your diligence and attention to the small details and hope that your endeavors into addressing corroded sensor coverglass is successful and look forward to your future postings as things develop.

Dave (D&A)

His name is Jadon. Lol.

[codocee]

No solution for those folks with the original monochrome, is that correct?

[Raymondl]

26 minutes ago, codocee said:

No solution for those folks with the original monochrome, is that correct?

No: kolari vision 

unconfirmed: MaxMax, Jadon

[BrianS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The M Monochrom uses the same sensor and cover glass. What works for the M9 should work for the M Monochrom.

 

The KAF-18500 is used in both the M9 and M Monochrom, but the datasheet is available for the color version only. The M Monochrom used the same S8612 cover glass that goes bad, the new probably uses BG-55. Leica obviously did not have to change the color dye used in it, as they did for the M9.

[kristyansen]

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

[dummilux]

1 hour ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

I sent mine To Kolari yesterday. I’ll keep you updated.

[Jadon Rosado]

4 hours ago, codocee said:

No solution for those folks with the original monochrome, is that correct?

I haven’t repaired the monochrome yet, I do know that they use the same filter so using the bg40 shouldn’t be a problem

[Jadon Rosado]

2 hours ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

The BG40 does not have higher transmittance than the s8612, it just has a wider range making the appearance of overexposure. Both the bg40 and the s8612 allow 98% of visual light to pass, the BG40 just covers more colors than the s8612 hence the vibrancy and shadow detail

[codocee]

I thought I read that Kolari was not accepting the monochrome for repair. I can’t find the source of that info. Can anyone confirm?

There seems to be conflicting information out there.

[jaapv]

Well, maybe Kolari could... Contact them.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, BrianS said:

The M Monochrom uses the same sensor and cover glass. What works for the M9 should work for the M Monochrom.

 

The KAF-18500 is used in both the M9 and M Monochrom, but the datasheet is available for the color version only. The M Monochrom used the same S8612 cover glass that goes bad, the new probably uses BG-55. Leica obviously did not have to change the color dye used in it, as they did for the M9.

Leica did struggle with the tonal rendering, which they wanted to resemble Delta.  I know they worked on the correct filter glass and coating even during the beta testing.

[codocee]

Just confirmed with Kolari-

Unable to repair Leica M9 Monochrome- Different glue used and risk of damage to sensor prevents them from accepting the camera for repair.

Not good news for M9 Monochrome owners.

[Jadon Rosado]

If anyone has a monochrome they like to send over I’d like to confirm that. The glue used for the stock filters is already difficult enough to remove and you run a high risk of scratching with any M9, that’s why I try to reduce as much contact as I can with the sensor.

A very sharp blade, steady hands, and a suction cup are the keys to removing the cover glass.

[codocee]

Owning a monochrome is like playing the stock market. An announcement is made that there is a savior on the horizon for M9/ME/MM owners, restoring the life and value of these cameras.

Then it’s discovered that in fact the MM will not be taking the ride to redemption and again the value of that camera plummets.

To retain my sanity, I think I will elect to continue to use the camera until the files are no longer acceptable, at which point I will either sell it for parts or set it on my shelf as a reminder of what a beautiful pc of design it was, from the exterior anyway.

 

C’est la vie

[Raymondl]

4 hours ago, kristyansen said:

Hi all I need a bit of support to understand the impact of the different solutions. One of the provided solutions mentions a 1/4 stop luminosity loss; another solution leads to slight overexposing.

Especially on the underexposing one, what exactly should the adjusted exposure be when a normal exposure would have been 

1/60 (shake-free with 35mm lens) at 1.4 (max aperture) and ISO 800 (max usable ISO)?

Kolari vision - my experience

I have tried some “low light” iso tests, to be honest with you I really couldn’t tell the difference ? So...if there was a change it’s so subtle that I couldn’t tell...

My approach to “low light”

In situations where the light is less than ideal I put the camera to 1/60 + F(wide open) + ISO 640 ... I then edit the files (DNG) appropriately in post.

 

[Jadon Rosado]

21 minutes ago, codocee said:

Owning a monochrome is like playing the stock market. An announcement is made that there is a savior on the horizon for M9/ME/MM owners, restoring the life and value of these cameras.

Then it’s discovered that in fact the MM will not be taking the ride to redemption and again the value of that camera plummets.

To retain my sanity, I think I will elect to continue to use the camera until the files are no longer acceptable, at which point I will either sell it for parts or set it on my shelf as a reminder of what a beautiful pc of design it was, from the exterior anyway.

 

C’est la vie

If you ever change your mind, I have an open bench. It won’t cost you anything but your time and shipping, everything else will be covered pro bono. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[BrianS]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Leica did struggle with the tonal rendering, which they wanted to resemble Delta.  I know they worked on the correct filter glass and coating even during the beta testing.

The cover glass is the same S8612- I wonder if Leica used a Dye in the Microlens array for the final spectral sensitivity? Then wonder if they changed it for the BG55 cover glass, as they did with the M9. I'm not taking mine apart to find out... I do that with a lot of lenses and some cameras.